GreyGriffin:
engine:
Roll first, then describe.
I'm not a huge fan of this for a very specific reason - it makes your decision on how to handle the scene or conflict unable to affect the roll.
No, it doesn't. You can make choices about the action before making the roll, no reason you can't. But players who describe what they're doing, and then roll, and then don't think the roll makes sense have made a mistake. The roll is correct with what the outcome is; they were incorrect in describing an outcome that the dice might not support. One can describe some before and some after, but as long as the roll could describe disaster, they should leave room in their description for that.
GreyGriffin:
Combat and action are roleplaying,
Nice to see someone say that. I agree.
GreyGriffin:
and most roll-in-advance systems offer mechanics to affect the roll after the fact. Not so with OSR or most D&D derivatives, with only a handful of exceptions.
It makes the outcome of the conflict make the jump from merely abstract to totally arbitrary. The player needs to have some agency, and that usually means deciding on a course of action before a roll is made.
A course of action, yes, but not a conclusion. A post can be "sharp and engaging," and involve a clever plan or something for a bonus, but if the dice can result in "automatic loss" or other disaster, then that's how it is. I don't see why one should or would view that as "sour." If that's how one is going to feel about it, then it seems as though the dice shouldn't be rolled at all in that situation, or that the character's successful execution isn't in question, but that the roll represents only the vagaries of fate.